Not a very FORTH friendly question. I'm an old C programmer and while I could make an educated guess, I don't think I would be able to confidently answer the question after a long flight.
Which was the whole point. In the USA there used to poll tax laws and literacy tests to vote. Those laws were coincidentally almost all in Jim Crow states, and they were coincidentally only dragged out when a dark-skinned person wanted to vote. One person would ask black applicants, as part of their "test" to give the exact amount of jellybeans in a jar. The entire point was to make them nearly impossible to pass, and them apply them at will to prevent voting from people who they didn't want to vote, but couldn't legally prohibit from it for the actual reason they wanted.
If you look at these reports, they aren't coming from random people at random times. They are coming from people who would have been covered by Trump's recent executive order, that got blocked by the courts for likely illegally singling out a particular religion. This little legal end-run they appear to be pulling is right out of the White Supremacy handbook.
You know, in isolation, I complete agree with this.
However, this didn't happen in isolation. It happened in an environment where this same organization (part of the Executive branch) has just been found by the Ninth Circuit courts to be attempting to specifically ban as many adherents of a specific religion as they could, including people from this same country, on a transparently flimsy legal pretext. The Administration isn't appealing it any further, which is essentially and admission. This is as close to an objective truth on a political matter as the US legal system has.
So harassing a valid Visa holder from this same country, in context, no longer looks particularly innocent. It looks very much like someone possibly literally being in contempt of court.
No, he's saying that corporate programming managers are too timid to take risks.
They don't really have to anymore though. They can let users find their own good new stuff they like on streaming services, and just play the stuff that people seem to like from there. The only reason why "risks" were ever taken before was because they had to do that to get new "content" into the stream.
but aside from that almost every station on the dial had an unique and reflected some personal perspective. Often they were labors of love, with owners or DJs promoting genres of music they enjoyed personally, like classical or jazz, or towards the end, hip-hop.
It would be amusing to see a modern remake of WKRP In Cincinnati. These days WKRP would be owned by Clear Channel, and a show about it would basically be The Office / Office Space.
This was written by someone who clearly doesn't remember Wham!, Thompson Twins, Flock of Seagulls, Rick Astley, Milli Vannili, Debbi Gibson, Paula Abdul, etc. Music has always been like this. You're just engaging in observer bias, because the only stuff you know about from 30 years ago is the 10% that wasn't crap, and people still want to listen to.
You have it lucky kid. When I was a teen, MTV was our Youtube, and we had to just watch whatever they broadcast and hope the next one would be good. We got regularly rickrolled in real life.
A car driver losing control and injuring a pedestrian would serve more time.
...or someone caught engaging in celebratory gunfire that hit someone. Had this happen to a kid of a friend recently. Yeah, the guy probably thought, although it was dangerous to do in a crowd, the bullets most likely wouldn't hit anyone, and he'd like to do it. A short amount of jail time is entirely appropriate for that. This guy should feel fortunate it wasn't longer.
In places where people are allowed to carry, violent crime GOES DOWN. The "more legally owned and used guns equals more crime" meme is demonstrably false.
Got data for this assertion?
My attempt to find backup for it produced a couple of lists. The list of states with the highest level of gun homicides (suicides not counted) are mostly Southern states, which are also all very pro-gun. The list of states with the lowest level of gun homicides are almost ALL rural Western and New England states, (most of which are also very pro-gun). So basically there's no evidence gun laws have any impact at all. It looks a lot like the difference is more cultural than legal.
So let's say that Uber cuts the 60% subsidy of each ride. How many drivers will still work for Uber when their income is cut 60%?
What makes you think it would work that way? It seems more likely Uber is paying drivers exactly what they want to be paying them, and if they quit subsidizing the rides that would just mean the riders pay 60% more to Uber. Now its basic economics that this will likely price some riders out of the market, and that will certainly affect the drivers (same # of drivers chasing less riders). But otherwise, this equation doesn't affect drivers at all.
OK, but what does "sufficient self-gravitation" mean? There's clearly no actual number objective number there, because if there were it should be calculable and put right in the proposal. They are hand-waving based on the empherical evidence that the body in question is roughly round.
So what they are saying is that a particular largish body that happens to be round may have originally had some outside help, but *currently* has sufficient gravitation to KEEP itself round (barring some collision with a large enough object), and that makes it a planet. And I can say the exact same thing about a marble.
Well, let's all bow down the moral arbiters of justice then. I'm sure that they'll be right on top of removing speech they disagree with.
This is precisely what the spammers warned us about when the exact same Bayesian techniques were applied to get rid of spam. But you didn't listen to their plight, and now here we are having abusive trolls content removed before too. Where will the carnage end?
"A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid regardless of its orbital parameters."
If that's a little too jargony for you, their 'layman's version' is simply: "Round objects in space that are smaller than stars."
I don't know about this. By this really simplistic definition, not only are most moons now "planets", but so are a lot of asteroids and comets (of all sizes). Untold thousands of objects in our solar system will now become "planets". There's also no real clear dividing line on shape. What's the objective definition of "a spheroidal shape"? Even the Earth is far from perfectly round, so where's the line on jagged asterorids?
Under this definition, if I throw a marble out of the ISS, it will magically become a planet. Every loose ball bearing in orbit today is now a planet too.
Anyone who thinks this will return Pluto to its former special status, well, it does quite the opposite.
It seems like this particular wheel gets regularly reinvented
Indeed. The college-prep school I attended in 7th grade back in 1980 had a unit in the Social Studies class everyone had to take and pass on Propaganda. Roughly the same thing, as near as I can tell.
Anyone watching the end sequence of that video who goes on to describe it as anti-semitic either does not understand human emotion or is deliberately lying.
Its using an anti-Semitic message to make a point. I understand that fine. But its also a video where a smiling person merrily displays message promoting genocide while the host laughs his ass off. If that doesn't make you the least bit uncomfortable, I'm a little worried about you. And ironically, the "joke" appears to be "look, nobody's doing anything to stop me from saying these horrible things". So when someone comes along and in fact does a wee bit of that, I don't see where he's got a lot of valid ground to get mad about it. Its precisely what he was asking for in the first place.
As far as the WSJ misrepresenting something, that's hardly new for them.
That's very interesting. Among other things, it implies that Mammoths and Asian elephants are closer related to each other than either is to African elephants (but not by much).
Another way of putting this is that its probably more accurate to consider Mammoths as just another species of Elephant.
There used to (in historic times) be another relatively small North African Elephant species (Hannibal used them in his war with Rome), that is also now extinct. There were quite recently lots of island-based pygmy elephants and pygmy mammoths too. If you could bring back a Mammoth, those might be equally recoverable.
Randomly digging through the earth can in fact be quite destructive. Just ask anyone who's ever done just that without calling the utilities first, and opened a Natural Gas main. Or anybody living in north-central Fracklahoma
I don't live in Europe, Russia, China, or anywhere else on the planet.
I don't need it unlocked (which is usually more expensive here), because the phones I buy are cheap, and thus no real hardship to replace on the rare occasions I decide to jump ship (perhaps 3 times in the last 10 years).
It is already easy to move to a different carrier and take my number with me. Cell networks don't "own" numbers here anymore. Haven't for a long time.There are enough of us that my family actually has 2 plans (with different carriers) and we've switched carriers several times with at least 3 different numbers that I'm aware of..
I don't use my "phone" for talking, for the most part, but as a mobile internet device. It is now the exact midpoint of the month, and I'm (personally, not counting anyone else on the plan) at 2.4GB of data usage. I have multiple teenage girls on my plan too. Some bare-bones setup with 3GB a month would not be sufficient. If it was, I suspect they'd be available, but it isn't.
All of this has exactly 0 to do with my point about the availability of that manufacturer's devices for purchase in the US (again, they are not). If you feel personal ire toward a US cell carrier, that's certainly your prerogative. But kindly direct it in appropriate threads.
Why do you continue to be ripped off by your carrier?
That's quite a leap. But you seem to be in good company pole vaulting over there, so perhaps I should explain why this is relevant...
You see, in the US different carriers tend to have semi-incompatible phone networks. Therefore, I can't just go buy any cellphone and expect it to work optimally with my carrier. For instance, if I want an S7, I need to go buy the version of the S7 that is customized to work on my carrier's network.
Does that mean I need to buy it from my carrier directly? Of course not. I believe I bought my last cellphone off of Amazon. But it does mean my carrier's "phone store" web page is a good place to go when I want to present a nice central list of "the different types of phones that work on their network" for the purposes of discussion.
I assure you it is also the case that if we were talking about cars, and I illustrated a point with Toyota's web page for a Corolla, that doesn't mean I go buy brand new Corollas directly from Toyota all the time either.
Oh, get serious. The whole "superdelegate" apparatus exists only to thwart the will of the voters.
This is in fact 100% true. The theory behind it is that "the voters" in a primary could easily be people who just became Democrats this week (or in some states aren't even Democrats at all), don't give a crap about the party, or even want to actively sabotage it. Remember that primaries are the parties picking their standard-bearer, not the USA at large picking theirs. Superdelegates are elected officials (Governors, Senators, etc.) with at least some proven investment in the party itself. In recent history they almost never vote contrary to the wishes of their own constituents when those are clear, but they are there as an "in case of emergency, break glass" set of votes to salvage the party. If the Republicans hadn't got rid of most of theirs, we likely wouldn't have the "President Putin/Banner" circus we are enjoying today.
That being said, if the Democrats don't like having them, and would prefer to just let whoever shows up on election/caucus day decide with no possible check whatsoever, that's entirely their prerogative. There have been some changes already to reduce their influence, and more seem likely.
I'm guessing these sales are happening almost entirely in China? There's no Huawei phone even listed as an option on my carrier's website. As a consumer, sales maketshare really doesn't mean a whole lot to me until they are selling phones in my market.
I can kinda see why they wouldn't bother though. While I think its really important that Samsung has good viable competition in Android devices, I don't think I'd be entirely comfortable buying myself a consumer communications device from a company with deep ties to the Chinese Army.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a very FORTH friendly question. I'm an old C programmer and while I could make an educated guess, I don't think I would be able to confidently answer the question after a long flight.
Which was the whole point. In the USA there used to poll tax laws and literacy tests to vote. Those laws were coincidentally almost all in Jim Crow states, and they were coincidentally only dragged out when a dark-skinned person wanted to vote. One person would ask black applicants, as part of their "test" to give the exact amount of jellybeans in a jar. The entire point was to make them nearly impossible to pass, and them apply them at will to prevent voting from people who they didn't want to vote, but couldn't legally prohibit from it for the actual reason they wanted.
If you look at these reports, they aren't coming from random people at random times. They are coming from people who would have been covered by Trump's recent executive order, that got blocked by the courts for likely illegally singling out a particular religion. This little legal end-run they appear to be pulling is right out of the White Supremacy handbook.
You know, in isolation, I complete agree with this.
However, this didn't happen in isolation. It happened in an environment where this same organization (part of the Executive branch) has just been found by the Ninth Circuit courts to be attempting to specifically ban as many adherents of a specific religion as they could, including people from this same country, on a transparently flimsy legal pretext. The Administration isn't appealing it any further, which is essentially and admission. This is as close to an objective truth on a political matter as the US legal system has.
So harassing a valid Visa holder from this same country, in context, no longer looks particularly innocent. It looks very much like someone possibly literally being in contempt of court.
Sorry, you must be new to the interwebs. All caps is shouting, used by those with denser cranial structures.
FTFY
No, he's saying that corporate programming managers are too timid to take risks.
They don't really have to anymore though. They can let users find their own good new stuff they like on streaming services, and just play the stuff that people seem to like from there. The only reason why "risks" were ever taken before was because they had to do that to get new "content" into the stream.
but aside from that almost every station on the dial had an unique and reflected some personal perspective. Often they were labors of love, with owners or DJs promoting genres of music they enjoyed personally, like classical or jazz, or towards the end, hip-hop.
It would be amusing to see a modern remake of WKRP In Cincinnati. These days WKRP would be owned by Clear Channel, and a show about it would basically be The Office / Office Space.
This was written by someone who clearly doesn't remember Wham!, Thompson Twins, Flock of Seagulls, Rick Astley, Milli Vannili, Debbi Gibson, Paula Abdul, etc. Music has always been like this. You're just engaging in observer bias, because the only stuff you know about from 30 years ago is the 10% that wasn't crap, and people still want to listen to.
You have it lucky kid. When I was a teen, MTV was our Youtube, and we had to just watch whatever they broadcast and hope the next one would be good. We got regularly rickrolled in real life.
So I take it the answer to my question is, "No, I don't have any actual data to back my statement up."
A car driver losing control and injuring a pedestrian would serve more time.
...or someone caught engaging in celebratory gunfire that hit someone. Had this happen to a kid of a friend recently. Yeah, the guy probably thought, although it was dangerous to do in a crowd, the bullets most likely wouldn't hit anyone, and he'd like to do it. A short amount of jail time is entirely appropriate for that. This guy should feel fortunate it wasn't longer.
In places where people are allowed to carry, violent crime GOES DOWN. The "more legally owned and used guns equals more crime" meme is demonstrably false.
Got data for this assertion?
My attempt to find backup for it produced a couple of lists. The list of states with the highest level of gun homicides (suicides not counted) are mostly Southern states, which are also all very pro-gun. The list of states with the lowest level of gun homicides are almost ALL rural Western and New England states, (most of which are also very pro-gun). So basically there's no evidence gun laws have any impact at all. It looks a lot like the difference is more cultural than legal.
And then drivers either stop driving altogether or end up charging less to compete.
Drivers don't set the prices, Uber does. Drivers' only choices in this market are when its worth their time to go online offering uber rides.
Did you even watch the movie??
Caught me. Actually, no and I'm fairly proud of that fact.
So let's say that Uber cuts the 60% subsidy of each ride. How many drivers will still work for Uber when their income is cut 60%?
What makes you think it would work that way? It seems more likely Uber is paying drivers exactly what they want to be paying them, and if they quit subsidizing the rides that would just mean the riders pay 60% more to Uber. Now its basic economics that this will likely price some riders out of the market, and that will certainly affect the drivers (same # of drivers chasing less riders). But otherwise, this equation doesn't affect drivers at all.
He was also killed by an iceberg in Titanic, and turned into a giant farting blob in Weird Science.
OK, but what does "sufficient self-gravitation" mean? There's clearly no actual number objective number there, because if there were it should be calculable and put right in the proposal. They are hand-waving based on the empherical evidence that the body in question is roughly round.
So what they are saying is that a particular largish body that happens to be round may have originally had some outside help, but *currently* has sufficient gravitation to KEEP itself round (barring some collision with a large enough object), and that makes it a planet. And I can say the exact same thing about a marble.
Well, let's all bow down the moral arbiters of justice then. I'm sure that they'll be right on top of removing speech they disagree with.
This is precisely what the spammers warned us about when the exact same Bayesian techniques were applied to get rid of spam. But you didn't listen to their plight, and now here we are having abusive trolls content removed before too. Where will the carnage end?
"A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid regardless of its orbital parameters."
If that's a little too jargony for you, their 'layman's version' is simply: "Round objects in space that are smaller than stars."
I don't know about this. By this really simplistic definition, not only are most moons now "planets", but so are a lot of asteroids and comets (of all sizes). Untold thousands of objects in our solar system will now become "planets". There's also no real clear dividing line on shape. What's the objective definition of "a spheroidal shape"? Even the Earth is far from perfectly round, so where's the line on jagged asterorids?
Under this definition, if I throw a marble out of the ISS, it will magically become a planet. Every loose ball bearing in orbit today is now a planet too.
Anyone who thinks this will return Pluto to its former special status, well, it does quite the opposite.
It seems like this particular wheel gets regularly reinvented
Indeed. The college-prep school I attended in 7th grade back in 1980 had a unit in the Social Studies class everyone had to take and pass on Propaganda. Roughly the same thing, as near as I can tell.
Anyone watching the end sequence of that video who goes on to describe it as anti-semitic either does not understand human emotion or is deliberately lying.
Its using an anti-Semitic message to make a point. I understand that fine. But its also a video where a smiling person merrily displays message promoting genocide while the host laughs his ass off. If that doesn't make you the least bit uncomfortable, I'm a little worried about you. And ironically, the "joke" appears to be "look, nobody's doing anything to stop me from saying these horrible things". So when someone comes along and in fact does a wee bit of that, I don't see where he's got a lot of valid ground to get mad about it. Its precisely what he was asking for in the first place.
As far as the WSJ misrepresenting something, that's hardly new for them.
That's very interesting. Among other things, it implies that Mammoths and Asian elephants are closer related to each other than either is to African elephants (but not by much).
Another way of putting this is that its probably more accurate to consider Mammoths as just another species of Elephant.
There used to (in historic times) be another relatively small North African Elephant species (Hannibal used them in his war with Rome), that is also now extinct. There were quite recently lots of island-based pygmy elephants and pygmy mammoths too. If you could bring back a Mammoth, those might be equally recoverable.
It's just like the regular earth, except it wears a cape, and can only be mined for minerals using kryptonite drill bits.
Randomly digging through the earth can in fact be quite destructive. Just ask anyone who's ever done just that without calling the utilities first, and opened a Natural Gas main. Or anybody living in north-central Fracklahoma
I don't live in Europe, Russia, China, or anywhere else on the planet.
I don't need it unlocked (which is usually more expensive here), because the phones I buy are cheap, and thus no real hardship to replace on the rare occasions I decide to jump ship (perhaps 3 times in the last 10 years).
It is already easy to move to a different carrier and take my number with me. Cell networks don't "own" numbers here anymore. Haven't for a long time.There are enough of us that my family actually has 2 plans (with different carriers) and we've switched carriers several times with at least 3 different numbers that I'm aware of..
I don't use my "phone" for talking, for the most part, but as a mobile internet device. It is now the exact midpoint of the month, and I'm (personally, not counting anyone else on the plan) at 2.4GB of data usage. I have multiple teenage girls on my plan too. Some bare-bones setup with 3GB a month would not be sufficient. If it was, I suspect they'd be available, but it isn't.
All of this has exactly 0 to do with my point about the availability of that manufacturer's devices for purchase in the US (again, they are not). If you feel personal ire toward a US cell carrier, that's certainly your prerogative. But kindly direct it in appropriate threads.
Why do you continue to be ripped off by your carrier?
That's quite a leap. But you seem to be in good company pole vaulting over there, so perhaps I should explain why this is relevant...
You see, in the US different carriers tend to have semi-incompatible phone networks. Therefore, I can't just go buy any cellphone and expect it to work optimally with my carrier. For instance, if I want an S7, I need to go buy the version of the S7 that is customized to work on my carrier's network.
Does that mean I need to buy it from my carrier directly? Of course not. I believe I bought my last cellphone off of Amazon. But it does mean my carrier's "phone store" web page is a good place to go when I want to present a nice central list of "the different types of phones that work on their network" for the purposes of discussion.
I assure you it is also the case that if we were talking about cars, and I illustrated a point with Toyota's web page for a Corolla, that doesn't mean I go buy brand new Corollas directly from Toyota all the time either.
Oh, get serious. The whole "superdelegate" apparatus exists only to thwart the will of the voters.
This is in fact 100% true. The theory behind it is that "the voters" in a primary could easily be people who just became Democrats this week (or in some states aren't even Democrats at all), don't give a crap about the party, or even want to actively sabotage it. Remember that primaries are the parties picking their standard-bearer, not the USA at large picking theirs. Superdelegates are elected officials (Governors, Senators, etc.) with at least some proven investment in the party itself. In recent history they almost never vote contrary to the wishes of their own constituents when those are clear, but they are there as an "in case of emergency, break glass" set of votes to salvage the party. If the Republicans hadn't got rid of most of theirs, we likely wouldn't have the "President Putin/Banner" circus we are enjoying today.
That being said, if the Democrats don't like having them, and would prefer to just let whoever shows up on election/caucus day decide with no possible check whatsoever, that's entirely their prerogative. There have been some changes already to reduce their influence, and more seem likely.
I'm old enough to remember when OS's and browsers were completely separate things, and tying them together was something only monopolists did.
I'm guessing these sales are happening almost entirely in China? There's no Huawei phone even listed as an option on my carrier's website. As a consumer, sales maketshare really doesn't mean a whole lot to me until they are selling phones in my market.
I can kinda see why they wouldn't bother though. While I think its really important that Samsung has good viable competition in Android devices, I don't think I'd be entirely comfortable buying myself a consumer communications device from a company with deep ties to the Chinese Army.